Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Minott


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not unanimous, but the vast majority clearly feel that the level of media coverage of this person is not indicative of notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sierra Minott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minott is only notable for being Miss Florida, and being Miss any state is not enough on its own to justify having a stand alone article on the person. Some might claim being 4th runner up to Miss America is enough, but the fact that it gets a one line notice in the blurb section of her local paper and that is it suggests it is not. Coverage of Minott elsewhere is very minor. She had a role in the 2015 film War Room, but it was "Brightwell Employee", this is an extremely minor role. Her other film role was not even credited. The only other thing I came up with in my search that was not a blog post or a YouTube link was a notice about her speaking at a central Florida Methodist women's meeting, and that was an announcement from the orginazation drumming up publicity. There is just not the 3rd party news coverage over an extended period to justify having the article on Minott. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not aware that the community has come to a consensus that participation in a beauty pageant, even a large-scale one, confers notability in the absence of WP:GNG. A WP:BIO1E otherwise.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is never conferred, so of course the community would never consent to such a thing. The community wants to cover all state winners of Miss America and Miss USA.  Whether or not the material is merged or standalone seems to be a detail left up to the people willing to do the work, except for out-of-process deletion discussions improperly closed as delete.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO1E is an argument to merge. Did you have an argument for deletion, or did you intend this to be a merge !vote?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, my argument for deletion was and is: There are no WP:RS that cover Ms. Minott as an individual except in connection with placing in a pageant. If, as you say, the community wants to cover all participants in these pageants, could you please direct me to that discussion? I don't want to presume for others but from the comments in this discussion the nominator and the other editors may also not be aware of that decision.  That may well just be a case of two WP sub-communities (i.e., pageant-focused editors and AfD-focused editors) not interacting.  Thanks.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As for covering all participants, see Miss Florida. For some extracted comments from the Wikiproject, see my reply at here.  I also reviewed WP:BIO1E, and again state that it is not an argument for deletion.  I also did a Wikipedia search on the topic's name and see that a deletion will create 47 red links.   Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating first of all, thank you for providing information that, indeed, there were apparently discussions in the relevant Wikiproject where intentions are to include all state-level Miss USA/Miss America winners. I was not aware of that, especially since I had stopped following DGG's talk page and did not see your response to John Pack Lambert.  That all said, I think a larger discussion needs to happen.  I am not currently inclined to agree that the project's ambitions should overrule the usual standards, particularly the general notability guideline, and WP:ATD is not an absolute.  You have added references, but after reviewing them (the ones that I could get to, that is) there seems to be a high amount of routine coverage.  I think the only way forward is to open an RfC where both sub-communities, the AfD participants and the WikiProject members, together with anyone from the larger community, can meet and hash out a consistent standard on beauty pageant nominations. To demonstrate my good faith, I will, for the time being, strike my Delete pending the organization of such a discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I opened an RFC at the talk page of Wikiproject Beauty pageants and put notice of it at the village pump. Very few people have participated, but like here, the general consensus is that being Miss some state is not a default sign of notability, and we need to get more than routine coverage to keep articles. This is also the working consensus for over 100 AFD nominations from beauty pageant related articles in the last 6 months. Unscintillating is about the only person who opposes this, with every measure of beauracatic rulesmanship he can muster, even attacking people for not posting on the accounts of dead people about nominations. It is not good faith to reward his hardheadedness, but an act of giving into bullying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the comment of 100 AfDs, a review of the Wikiproject Beauty Pageant talk page shows that JPL attracted attention because JPL had 70 AfDs simultaneously open at the end of August. Unscintillating (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The right RfC link is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. The RfC I refer to is item 61.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to reviewers: The above may be taken to apply equally to the AfD discussions for Melaina Shipwash, Caleche_Manos, Randi Sundquist, and Katherine Kelley, also nominated by John Pack Lambert for similar rationales and relisted for further consideration. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 14 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as simply participating itself is not at all close to actual significance in substance let alone an acceptable article. SwisterTwister   talk  23:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are the citations from the article, skipping obvious primary sources:
 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep These are not policy based arguments, as even if everything argued is true, we still will cover this topic in the encyclopedia.  See WP:ATD.  One of the bottom lines for a volunteer organization is the people willing to do the work.  This means that the bottom line for an argument of non-notability here is, are you willing to do the work to marge?  In addition to there being no argument for deletion, and good reason to speedy close such discussions, this topic is notable.  The title of "Miss Florida 2015" does not need an introduction for readers to recognize the title.  So there is not really any argument that the title is "well-known".  Whether or not the title is "significant" is less clear to me, but the alternative is that it is not significant, which is not the prevailing consensus on Wikipedia.  So with just these two sentences, this establishes ANYBIO#1.  There is also good reason to believe that this topic passes WP:GNG, and that anyone who achieves this title will be known for this accomplishment throughout the rest of their professional career, so the title is enduring.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- coverage is strictly local; this is insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What WP:GNG wants is reliable sources. WP:AUD is found in WP:CORP.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the notability bar is higher for living people than for corporations, so audience should be considered, especially when we are dealing with a minor competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.